2454 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 12 / Friday, January 19, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

shall provide a standby towing vessel 

that is FiFi class 1 equipped with a 

minimum capacity of 100,000 pounds of 

bollard pull and 4,000 horsepower that 

is available to assist as directed by the 

LNG vessel bridge watch required in 

paragraph (d)(5) of this section. 

(4) Requirements while LNG tankships 

are moored both inside the LNG facility 

slip and outside the LNG facility slip—

(i) When one LNG tankship is moored 

inside and one LNG tankship is moored 

outside of the LNG facility slip, the LNG 

tankship moored outside of the LNG 

facility slip shall have on-scene a 

minimum of two escort towing vessels 

each with a minimum of 100,000 

pounds of bollard pull, 4,000 

horsepower and capable of safely 

operating in the indirect mode in order 

to escort transiting vessels 1,600 gross 

tons or greater past the moored LNG 

tankship. At least one of these towing 

vessels shall be FiFi Class 1 equipped. 

In addition, the LNG tankship moored 

inside of the slip shall have at least one 

standby towing vessel with a minimum 

of 100,000 pounds of bollard pull, 4,000 

horsepower and FiFi Class 1 equipped 

to take appropriate actions in an 

emergency as directed by the LNG 

vessel bridge watch required in 

paragraph (d)(5) of this section. 

(ii) When one LNG tankship is 

moored outside and two LNG tankships 

are moored inside the LNG facility slip, 

the LNG tankship moored outside of the 

LNG facility slip shall have on-scene a 

minimum of two escort towing vessels 

each with a minimum of 100,000 

pounds of bollard pull, 4,000 

horsepower and capable of safely 

operating in the indirect mode in order 

to escort transiting vessels 1,600 gross 

tons or greater past the moored LNG 

tankship. At least one of these towing 

vessels shall be FiFi Class 1 equipped. 

In addition, the LNG tankships moored 

inside of the slip shall have at least one 

standby towing vessel between the two 

ships with a minimum of 100,000 

pounds of bollard pull, 4,000 

horsepower and FiFi Class 1 equipped 

to take appropriate actions in an 

emergency as directed by the LNG 

vessel bridge watch required in 

paragraph (d)(5) of this section. 

(iii) In the event of an actual 

emergency, escort towing vessels can be 

utilized as stand-by towing vessels to 

take appropriate actions as directed by 

the LNG vessel bridge watch required in 

paragraph (d)(5) of this section. 

(5) Requirements for moored LNG 

tankships—(i) While moored within the 

RNA, each LNG tankship shall maintain 

a bridge watch consisting of a docking 

pilot or licensed deck officer who shall 

monitor all vessels transiting past the 

LNG facility. In addition, the LNG 

Bridge Watch shall communicate with 

the pilots of vessels greater than 1600 

gross tons at the points identified in 

section (d)(6)(iii) of this section prior to 

passing the LNG facility in order to take 

actions of the towing vessel(s) required 

in paragraphs (d)(2) through (4) of this 

section. 

(ii) While moored within the RNA, 

LNG tankships shall have emergency 

towing wires (fire wires) positioned one 

meter above the waterline, both on the 

off-shore bow and quarter of the ship. 

LNG vessels equipped with waterline 

bollards are exempt from this 

requirement. 

(6) Requirements for other vessels 

while within the RNA—(i) Transiting 

vessels 1,600 gross tons or greater, when 

passing an LNG tankship moored 

outside of the LNG facility slip, shall 

have a minimum of two towing vessels 

with a minimum capacity of 100,000 

pounds of bollard pull, 4,000 

horsepower, and the ability to operate 

safely in the indirect mode, made-up in 

such a way as to be immediately 

available to arrest and control the 

motion of an escorted vessel in the 

event of steering, propulsion or other 

casualty. At least one of the towing 

vessels shall be FiFi Class 1 equipped. 

While it is anticipated that vessels will 

utilize the towing vessel services 

required in paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and 

(d)(4)(i) of this section, this section does 

not preclude escorted vessel operators 

from providing their own towing vessel 

escorts, provided they meet the 

requirements of this part. 

(A) Outbound vessels shall be madeup and escorted from Bight Channel 

Light 46 until the vessel is safely past 

the LNG dock. 

(B) Inbound vessels shall be made-up 

and escorted from Elba Island Light 37 

until the vessel is safely past the LNG 

dock. 

(ii) The requirements in paragraph 

(d)(6)(i) of this section do not apply 

when one or more LNG tankships are 

moored in the LNG facility slip and no 

LNG tankship is moored at the pier 

outside of the LNG facility slip. 

(iii) Vessels 1,600 gross tons or greater 

shall make a broadcast on channel 13 at 

the following points on the Savannah 

River: 

(A) Buoy ‘‘33’’ in the vicinity of Fields 

Cut for inbound vessels; 

(B) Buoy ‘‘53’’ in the vicinity of Fort 

Jackson for outbound vessels. 

(iv) Vessels 1,600 gross tons or greater 

shall at a minimum, transit at bare 

steerageway when within an area 1,000 

yards on either side of the LNG facility 

slip to minimize potential wake or surge 

damage to the LNG facility and vessel(s) 

within the slip. 

(v) Vessels 1,600 gross tons or greater 

shall not meet nor overtake within an 

area 1,000 yards on either side of the 

LNG facility slip when an LNG tankship 

is present within the slip. 

(vi) All vessels less than 1,600 gross 

tons shall not approach within 70 yards 

of an LNG tankship, carrying LNG in 

excess of heel, without the permission 

of the Captain of the Port. 

(vii) Except for vessels involved in 

those operations noted in paragraph (c) 

of this section entitled Applicability, no 

vessel shall enter the LNG facility slip 

at any time without the permission of 

the Captain of the Port. 

(e) Waivers. (1) The COTP may waive 

any requirement in this section, if the 

COTP finds that it is in the best interest 

of safety or in the interest of national 

security. Such waivers may be verbal or 

in writing. 

(2) An application for a waiver of 

these requirements must state the 

compelling need for the waiver and 

describe the proposed operation and 

methods by which adequate levels of 

safety are to be obtained. 

(f) Enforcement. Violations of this 

section should be reported to the 

Captain of the Port, Savannah, at (912) 

652–4353. In accordance with the 

general regulations in § 165.13 of this 

part, no person may cause or authorize 

the operation of a vessel in the regulated 

navigation area contrary to the 

provisions of this section. 

Dated: January 5, 2007. 

D. W. Kunkel, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

Seventh Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. E7–728 Filed 1–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1986–0005; FRL–8271–2] 

National Oil and Hazardous Substance 

Pollution Contingency Plan; National 

Priorities List 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final notice of deletion of 

the Avenue E Groundwater 

Contamination Superfund Site from the 

National Priorities List. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region V is publishing a 

direct final notice of deletion of the 

Avenue E Groundwater Contamination 

Superfund Site (Site), located in 


frosa on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 12 / Friday, January 19, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 2455 

Traverse City, Michigan from the 

National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, 

promulgated pursuant to section 105 of 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 

appendix B of 40 CFR part 300, which 

is the National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan 

(NCP). This direct final deletion is being 

published by EPA with the concurrence 

of the State of Michigan, through the 

Michigan Department of Environmental 

Quality (MDEQ), because EPA has 

determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA have 

been completed, and, therefore, further 

remedial action pursuant to CERCLA is 

not necessary at this time. 

DATES: This direct final notice of 

deletion will be effective March 20, 

2007 unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by February 20, 2007. If 

adverse comments are received, EPA 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final notice of deletion in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the deletion will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–

SFUND–1986–0005 by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: beard.gladys@epa.gov. 

• Fax: Gladys Beard at (312) 886–

4071. 

• Mail: Dave Novak, Community 

Involvement Coordinator, U.S. EPA (P–

19J), 77 W. Jackson, Chicago, Il 60604, 

312–886–0269 or 1–800–621–8431. 

• Hand Delivery: Dave Novak, 

Community Involvement Coordinator, 

(P–19J), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1986–

0005. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I of 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Superfund Division, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604. This Facility is open from 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Gladys 

Beard, State NPL Deletion Process 

Manager at (312) 886–7253, before 

visiting the Region 5 office. 

Information Repositories: 

Comprehensive information about the 

Site is available for viewing and copying 

at the Site information repositories 

located at: EPA Region V Record Center, 

77 W. Jackson, Chicago, Il 60604, (312) 

353–5821, Monday through Friday 8:30 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Linda Martin, Remedial Project Manager 

at (312) 886–3854, 

Martin.Lindab@epa.gov or Gladys 

Beard, State NPL Deletion Process 

Manager at (312) 886–7253, 

Beard.Gladys@epa.gov or 1–800–621–

8431, (SR–6J), U.S. EPA Region V, 77 W. 

Jackson, Chicago, IL 60604. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

III. Deletion Procedures 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

V. Deletion Action 

I. Introduction 

EPA Region V is publishing this direct 

final notice of deletion of the Avenue E 

Groundwater Contamination Superfund 

Site from the NPL. The EPA identifies 

sites that appear to present a significant 

risk to public health or the environment 

and maintains the NPL as the list of 

those sites. As described in section 

300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites deleted 

from the NPL remain eligible for 

remedial actions if conditions at a 

deleted site warrant such action. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be non-controversial and routine, EPA is 

taking it without prior publication of a 

notice of intent to delete. This action 

will be effective March 20, 2007 unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

February 20, 2007 on this document. If 

adverse comments are received within 

the 30-day public comment period on 

this document, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal of this direct final 

deletion before the effective date of the 

deletion and the deletion will not take 

effect. EPA will, as appropriate, prepare 

a response to comments and continue 

with the deletion process on the basis of 

the notice of intent to delete and the 

comments already received. There will 

be no additional opportunity to 

comment. 

Section II of this document explains 

the criteria for deleting sites from the 

NPL. Section III discusses procedures 

that EPA is using for this action. Section 

IV discusses the Avenue E Groundwater 

Superfund Site and demonstrates how it 

meets the deletion criteria. Section V 

discusses EPA’s action to delete the Site 

from the NPL unless adverse comments 

are received during the public comment 

period. 

II. NPL Deletion Criteria 

Section 300.425(e) of the NCP 

provides that releases may be deleted 

from the NPL where no further response 

is appropriate. In making a 

determination to delete a release from 

the NPL, EPA shall consider, in 

consultation with the State, whether any 

of the following criteria have been met: 

i. Responsible parties or other persons 

have implemented all appropriate 

response actions required; 


frosa on PROD1PC71 with RULES
2456 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 12 / Friday, January 19, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

ii. All appropriate Fund-financed 

(Hazardous Substance Superfund 

Response Trust Fund) responses under 

CERCLA have been implemented, and 

no further response action by 

responsible parties is appropriate; or 

iii. The remedial investigation has 

shown that the release poses no 

significant threat to public health or the 

environment and, therefore, the taking 

of remedial measures is not appropriate. 

Even if a site is deleted from the NPL, 

where hazardous substances, pollutants, 

or contaminants remain at the deleted 

site above levels that allow for 

unlimited use and unrestricted 

exposure, CERCLA section 121(c), 42 

U.S.C. 9621(c), requires that a 

subsequent review of the site be 

conducted at least every five years after 

the initiation of the remedial action at 

the deleted site to ensure that the action 

remains protective of public health and 

the environment. If new information 

becomes available which indicates a 

need for further action, EPA may initiate 

remedial actions. Whenever there is a 

significant release from a site deleted 

from the NPL, the deleted site may be 

restored to the NPL without application 

of the hazard ranking system. 

III. Deletion Procedures 

The following procedures apply to 

deletion of this Site: 

(1) The EPA consulted with the State 

of Michigan on the deletion of the Site 

from the NPL prior to developing this 

direct final notice of deletion. 

(2) Michigan concurred with deletion 

of the Site from the NPL. 

(3) Concurrently with the publication 

of this direct final notice of deletion a 

notice of intent to delete is published 

today in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’ section 

of the Federal Register, is being 

published in a major local newspaper of 

general circulation at or near the Site, 

and is being distributed to appropriate 

federal, state, and local government 

officials and other interested parties. 

The newspaper notice announces the 

30-day public comment period 

concerning the notice of intent to delete 

the Site from the NPL. 

(4) The EPA placed copies of 

documents supporting the deletion in 

the site information repositories 

identified above. 

(5) If adverse comments are received 

within the 30-day public comment 

period on this document, EPA will 

publish a timely notice of withdrawal of 

this direct final notice of deletion before 

its effective date and will prepare a 

response to comments and continue 

with a decision on the deletion based on 

the notice of intent to delete and the 

comments already received. 

Deletion of a site from the NPL does 

not itself create, alter, or revoke any 

individual’s rights or obligations. 

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not 

in any way alter EPA’s right to take 

enforcement actions, as appropriate. 

The NPL is designed primarily for 

informational purposes and to assist 

EPA management. Section 300.425(e)(3) 

of the NCP states that the deletion of a 

site from the NPL does not preclude 

eligibility for future response actions 

should future conditions warrant such 

actions. 

IV. Basis for Site Deletion 

The remedy at the Avenue E Site was 

found to be protective of human health 

and the environment. This 

determination was documented in the 

five year review conducted in 2005. All 

groundwater contaminants associated 

with the Coast Guard facility have 

reached the clean up standards 

specified in the 1987 agreement 

between the Coast Guard and the State 

of Michigan. All active remediation has 

been completed and no further actions 

are required for this Site. The following 

sections outline additional information 

reviewed as part of an NPL deletion 

determination. 

Site Location 

The Avenue E Groundwater 

Contamination Superfund Site was a 

groundwater contamination plume 

located in East Bay Township in 

Traverse County, Traverse City, 

Michigan. The source of the 

contamination was located on the U.S. 

Coast Guard (USCG) Air Station. The 

plume was located west of the 

intersection of Parsons Road and Aero 

Park Drive. It was traced to the 

northwest corner of an industrial park 

back lot located southwest of Nish-NahBee Industries. The plume eventually 

extended to the East Arm of the Grand 

Traverse Bay. 

Site History 

In 1980, residents of Avenue E in East 

Bay Township complained of odors and 

foaming in their well water. Subsequent 

investigation by the Michigan 

Department of Public Health (MDPH) 

and the Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources (MDNR) revealed the 

existence of a plume of contamination 

in the underlying aquifer. The plume 

consisted primarily of hydrocarbons 

found in petroleum distillates, 

including benzene and toluene, and 

some solvents. 

Removal Actions Performed 

On June 10, 1982, members of the 

USCG District 9 air station met with 

Region V removal staff to discuss the 

possibilities and procedures for 

receiving CERCLA funds to pay for the 

connection of the homes within the 

Avenue E area of concern to the existing 

public water supply system while the 

USCG conducted a hydrogeologic 

investigation to further determine the 

source of contamination identified by 

MDNR and MDPH. According to the On 

Scene Coordinator’s (OSC) report, the 

USCG could not pay for such 

connections without knowing their 

extent of responsibility. The Coast 

Guard agreed to enter into a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

with USEPA assuring to reimburse the 

Agency for all costs incurred for the 

connections should the USCG be found 

to be the responsible party. USEPA then 

proceeded with the removal action and 

all home connections to the existing 

public water supply were completed on 

December 12, 1982. A total of 59 homes 

received city water with nine home 

owners declining to receive full 

hookups. A total of 67 homes received 

some level of service from this action. 

The total cost reimbursed by the USCG 

to USEPA was $137,540. Although not 

all residents received full hookups to 

the public water supply system, the 

plume associated with the Coast Guard 

property no longer exists and therefore 

would indicate that no risk currently 

exists to those not fully connected to the 

public water supply from the 

contamination associated with the Coast 

Guard property. 

Remedial Investigation and Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) 

Groundwater 

The first investigation of the site was 

conducted by the MDNR in 1982. The 

State Agency’s study objectives were to 

locate and delineate the contaminant 

plume, identify and determine the 

distribution of its component parts and 

locate the probable source area of the 

plume. The MDNR drilled 24 wells and 

two auger holes along Parsons Road and 

around the lots of Jacklyn Steel and 

Nish-Nah-Bee Industries. 

As a result of this investigation, the 

MDNR determined that the USCG Air 

Station property was part of the 

suspected source area. The USCG 

contracted with the United States 

Geological Service (USGS) in July 1982 

to undertake a study of the area’s 

hydrogeologic conditions. Objectives of 

this study were: 

(1) To determine the rate and 

direction of groundwater flow; 

(2) locate the source or sources of 

contaminants; 


frosa on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 12 / Friday, January 19, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 2457 

(3) determine the extent and 

distribution of contaminants; 

(4) evaluate hydrologically suitable 

locations for installing purge wells 

should that be necessary. 

The USCG installed a total of 138 

wells on the Coast Guard property, up 

and down gradient of the base in and 

around the industrial areas and 

residential area. Five wells were 

installed to conduct a pump test for 

determining aquifer characteristics. 

At the request of the USCG, a team 

from the University of Michigan 

conducted a study of the site from 

February through August 1984. Building 

on the data and results given in the 

USCG report, the study was to be 

complementary to the USCG effort. By 

providing data and analysis on the time 

variation of contaminants, the effect of 

soil adsorptive characteristics on 

contaminant distribution and 

movement, and the potential risk posed 

by the contamination to public health, 

probable contaminant sources could be 

determined and remedial action 

alternatives developed. 

A total of 24 wells including 15 

existing and nine new wells were 

selected for analysis based on previous 

information. These wells were sampled 

six times at 21-day intervals. Statistical 

analysis was performed on the data and 

various data plots were generated. This 

information was used to provide 

supporting information for developing 

response alternatives. A preliminary 

risk assessment was made for the 

various chemical components found in 

the plume. A contaminant transport 

computer model was used to help 

determine the possible origin of the 

plume and the effectiveness of various 

purge well combinations. Finally, 

several cleanup alternatives were 

identified and discussed. 

Following the 1982 removal action, 

the Coast Guard also contracted and 

supervised additional groundwater 

investigations complementing those 

conducted earlier by the MDNR to aid 

in the planning of a long term response. 

Results of these investigations 

concluded the following: 

• A plume of contamination was 

found stretching from near the Hanger/ 

Administration (HA) building on the 

Coast Guard Property to East Bay. It was 

approximately 4300 feet long and from 

180 to 400 feet wide. Hydrocarbon 

spectra of the contamination were 

consistent with that of 115/145 aviation 

gasoline. Major components were 

benzene, toluene and xylene with a 

maximum concentration of 3640 μg/l, 

553000 μg/l and 5410 μg/l, respectively. 

• An additional contaminant plume 

was discovered on the Coast Guard 

property with parent origin near the 

Coast Guard’s fueling station. Around 

the fueling station several inches of pure 

JP–4 jet fuel product were found floating 

on the water table. 

• A third contaminant plume was 

found along the Coast Guard’s south 

fence line up-gradient from the fuel 

farm area. Possible origins include a 

1979 Republic Airlines jet fuel spill and 

various underground storage tanks in 

the area that had since been removed. 

• The contaminants were located in a 

sandy aquifer of high permeability. 

Groundwater flow is to the northeast 

with a velocity of approximately five 

feet per day. 

• A probable source of the original 

plume was a fuel spill in 1969 at the 

Coast Guard base in which about 2500 

gallons of aviation gasoline leaked into 

the ground at a fuel station located 

under the northwest corner of the new 

HA building. The second plume may 

have originated from leaking JP4 fuel 

tanks at the current fuel station. 

To mitigate adverse effects discovered 

during the investigation, interim 

responses were implemented. In 

addition to providing city water 

connections to affected residents in the 

Avenue E area, the USCG also installed 

and operated interdiction and purge 

systems with treatment capability to 

prevent additional offsite contaminant 

migration and removed and/or repaired 

tanks at the Coast Guard fueling station. 

In addition to the investigation of 

groundwater, the USGS and the 

University of Michigan (UM) reported 

numerous measurements of organics in 

the soils at the Coast Guard Air Station. 

The UM study found maximum 

concentrations of 25.4 μg/g benzene, 

27.6 μg/g toluene, and 229 μg/g xylene. 

Analyses were made for seven other 

hydrocarbons with negative results. Soil 

borings indicate that much of the 

organic material was adsorbed on the 

soil in a 6’’ to 12’’ thick layer in the 

capillary zone immediately above the 

water table. The UM suggested that this 

zone was slowly leaking organic 

contaminants into the groundwater over 

time and was serving as a source for the 

plume. 

Record of Decision Findings 

There was no Record of Decision 

(ROD) for this site. In 1987, an 

agreement between the State of 

Michigan and the USCG was negotiated. 

USCG agreed to pay the cost of 

implementing the cleanup of 

contamination emanating from the 

USCG air station. All clean up activities 

associated with the Ave E site were 

conducted as part of this Settlement 

agreement. 

Characterization of Remaining Risk 

The municipal water supply system 

serving the East Bay township 

residences and business currently meets 

federal and state drinking water 

standards and is safe for human 

consumption. The source of the 

township’s municipal water system is 

groundwater wells located in East Bay 

Township and monitored every three 

years. The wells used to supply water to 

East Bay Township are quite a distance 

up-gradient of the Coast Guard Facility, 

and the monitoring frequency for these 

wells is adequate. 

Currently, soil vapor intrusion is not 

considered a possible problem at the 

Site. Down gradient monitoring wells 

placed along Avenue E in the residential 

area where the plume was traced, have 

found no detectable levels of 

contaminants of concern associated 

with the USCG plume. 

Response Actions 

In 1987, an agreement between the 

State of Michigan and the USCG was 

negotiated. USCG agreed to pay the cost 

of implementing the cleanup of 

contamination emanating from the site. 

The cleanup involved extraction and 

treatment of contaminated groundwater. 

Some of the other remedial actions 

included enhanced biodegradation 

using hydrogen peroxide and nitrates to 

reduce plume contaminates. The USCG 

also implemented groundwater sparging 

with vapor extraction, venting with 

vapor extraction, soil venting, natural 

attenuation and surfactant injection and 

extraction. All of these additional 

remedial measures helped to reduce the 

contaminant source in the soil and 

speed treatment of the groundwater 

through the pump and treatment 

system. The contaminated groundwater 

was treated by activated carbon prior to 

discharge to the Traverse City Sewer 

system. By 1996, the contaminant levels 

rarely exceeded the cleanup criteria 

stipulated in the 1987 settlement 

agreement. In 1999, the wells remained 

clean. 

A Preliminary Closeout Report 

(PCOR) was completed by U.S. EPA in 

September 2000. The purpose of the 

PCOR was to document that all 

construction activity had been 

completed at the Site. 

Institutional Controls 

There were no provisions for 

institutional controls in any of the 

agreements associated with the clean up 

and monitoring of this site as the 

groundwater was to be remediated to 

unrestricted use. 


frosa on PROD1PC71 with RULES
2458 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 12 / Friday, January 19, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Cleanup Standards 

The cleanup standards in the 1987 

Settlement Agreement were designed to 

meet the contaminant levels for 

benzene, tetrachloroethylene and 

trichloroethylene as required by the 

State of Michigan (MDNR), based on 

acceptable standards in place at the time 

the Settlement Agreement was issued. 

This was an agreement between the 

MDNR and USCG. If these standards 

were not met, then additional measures 

would be taken. This Site is being 

deleted because the remedial response 

met all cleanup standards outlined in 

the 1987 Settlement Agreement. 

Operation and Maintenance 

USCG has completed monitoring 

groundwater at the site in accordance 

with the Settlement Agreement between 

the State of Michigan and the USCG 

filed on June 1, 1987. Per the Settlement 

Agreement with the State of Michigan, 

the USCG operated two interdiction 

fields (pump and treatment systems). 

There was one at the North of the base 

and one at the South of the base. They 

consisted of wells IN2, IN3, IN4, IN5, 

and IN6 in the North field (avgas plume) 

and PP5, PP7, and PP8 in the South 

Field (JP–4 field). Each interdiction 

point had point of compliance wells 

along the USCG property boundary. The 

North field point of compliance wells 

were M56, M1, M4, M3, and M55. The 

South field point of compliance wells 

were M22, M61, M62, and M64. There 

were a number of other wells installed 

over the course of the project for various 

reasons. In 2000, with consent of 

MDEQ, the USCG removed wells PP5, 

PP6, PP7 and PP8. In 2001, with the 

consent of MDEQ, wells IN2, IN3, IN4, 

IN5 and IN6 were removed along with 

the associated piping, manifolds, carbon 

treatment units, and discharge lines for 

both the North and South interdiction 

fields. The remaining monitoring wells 

will be removed after the 10 year post 

closure period. The post closure period 

started in October 2005. 

Five-Year Review 

EPA conducted a five-year review of 

the Site in 2005. In the review, EPA 

concluded that all remedial actions are 

complete and monitoring indicates that 

all clean up goals have been reached in 

connection with the 1987 Settlement 

Agreement. Therefore, no future fiveyear review, are required for this Site. 

Community Involvement 

Public participation activities have 

been satisfied as required in CERCLA 

section 113(k), 42 U.S.C. 9613(k), and 

CERCLA section 117, 42 U.S.C. 9617. 

Documents in the deletion docket which 

EPA relied on for recommendation of 

the deletion of this Site from the NPL 

are available to the public in the 

information repositories, and in http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

V. Deletion Action 

The EPA, with concurrence of the 

State of Michigan, determined that all 

appropriate responses under CERCLA 

have been completed, and that no 

further response actions under CERCLA 

are necessary. Therefore, EPA is 

deleting the Site from the NPL. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be non-controversial and routine, EPA is 

taking it without prior publication. This 

action will be effective March 20, 2007 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by February 20, 2007. If adverse 

comments are received within the 30- 

day public comment period, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of this 

direct final notice of deletion before the 

effective date of the deletion and it will 

not take effect. EPA will prepare a 

response to comments and, as 

appropriate, continue with the deletion 

process on the basis of the notice of 

intent to delete and the comments 

already received. There will be no 

additional opportunity to comment. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and record keeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated:January 9, 2007. 

Mary A. Gade, 

Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region V. 

■ For the reasons set out in this 

document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 300—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 

1991 Comp., p.351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923, 

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p.193. 

Appendix B—[Amended] 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to Part 300 

is amended under ‘‘MI’’ by removing the 

entry for ‘‘Avenue E Groundwater 

Contamination’’ and the city ‘‘Traverse 

City.’’

[FR Doc. E7–694 Filed 1–18–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 648 

RIN 0648–AT60 

[Docket No.061020273–7001–03; I.D. 

010307A] 

Fisheries of the Northeastern United 

States; Summer Flounder Fishery; 

Emergency Rule 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; emergency 

action; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is implementing, 

through this emergency rule, revised 

summer flounder total allowable 

landings (TAL) for the 2007 fishing year. 

This emergency rule specifies allowed 

harvest limits for both the commercial 

and recreational summer flounder 

fisheries. The TAL contained within 

this emergency rule supersedes the 

previous harvest limits for summer 

flounder that became effective on 

January 1, 2007. This action continues 

the prohibition on federally permitted 

commercial vessels landing summer 

flounder in Delaware in 2007 due to 

continued quota repayment of previous 

year’s overages. 

This emergency rule is necessary to 

increase the 2007 summer flounder 

harvest levels consistent with the 

recently enacted Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act of 2006 

(Reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act), 

while ensuring compliance with 

regulations implementing the Summer 

Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass 

Fishery Management Plan (FMP). In 

addition, this action will continue to 

ensure that fishing mortality rates (F) or 

exploitation rates, as specified in the 

FMP, are not exceeded. 

DATES: Effective from January 19, 2007 

through July 18, 2007. Comments must 

be received at the appropriate address or 

fax number (see ADDRESSES) by 5 p.m., 

local time, on February 20, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional 

Administrator, NMFS, Northeast 

Regional Office, One Blackburn Drive, 

Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the outside 

of the envelope, ‘‘Comments on Summer 

Flounder Emergency Action.’’

• E-mail: 

SummerFlounderEmergency@noaa.gov 


frosa on PROD1PC71 with RULES